Thursday, November 11, 2021
A Commentary on the Lord's Prayer
Thursday, January 21, 2021
News Media
News
Media
|
O |
nce upon a time, a man named John
Doe decided to enter the political arena and run for office. He ran for city
council and won. Unfortunately, his ideas ran contrary to the views of the
local news media.
At one meeting,
Mr. Doe proposed some infrastructure work. “For example, we might pave the
sidewalks in town,” he suggested. “That would result in safer, easier walking, and
it would upgrade our town’s image. After all, no more tracking mud into our
homes and stores would be a significant positive for everyone.”
The next day,
the local paper, the Clarion, ran
this article:
In a poorly thought-through idea and demonstrating an
astonishing lack of fiscal responsibility, first-term Councilman John Doe shocked
yesterday’s council meeting by proposing out of thin air that an unspecified—but
likely very large—amount of money be spent to improve Pleasantville’s already
perfectly good infrastructure, making the suggested expenditure a waste.
And as if that weren’t enough foolishness, Doe added
insult to injury by claiming that throwing money away on infrastructure would
“upgrade the town’s image,” implying that Pleasantville suffers from a negative
image. If so, it’s people like Doe who are contributing to it.
This sort of scurrilous attack on the good people of
this city is intolerable. Just who does Doe think he is that he can feel free
to cast disrespectful calumnies on this nationally well-respected town? Such an
insufferable insult should be . . . [Etc.].
“Hey Tom, why
do you think this Doe character proposed putting in sidewalks?” the reporter
asked.
“Who knows?
Maybe he’s just a do-gooder. Or maybe he owns stock in the paving company. Or
maybe he took a bribe from the concrete plant. Anything’s possible these days.”
The next day,
the Clarion ran this story:
Sources speculated yesterday that Councilman John Doe might
have taken a bribe from a company potentially involved in completing the
infrastructure project Doe proposed at a recent council meeting. The fact that
observers could identify no other reason for the proposed “improvements” lends
weight to the bribery possibility.
Not only is taking a bribe reprehensible in itself,
but it is inexcusable in the context of local government, where small
municipalities have limited resources. To think that Doe is willing to cash in
on his friends and neighbors is just despicable and tells us that he does not
understand even the basic principles of local government. How such a self-serving,
seemingly dishonest person could ever get elected . . . [Etc.].
Mr. Doe was understandably upset by this charge, so he called the Clarion to protest.
“I have never
taken a bribe for any purpose, nor would I,” he said.
The next day
the Clarion ran the following news:
Yesterday, Councilman John Doe, already embroiled
in a pay-for-play controversy over accusations that he has taken one or more bribes
in exchange for proposing unneeded make-work projects in the city, collapsed under
public pressure amid the whispering campaign that had concluded not only was he
guilty of the extortion attempts, but was actively pursuing other payola schemes
of a similar kind but with potentially greater payoffs.
Of course, Doe denied, a little bit too artfully,
that he had ever taken one or several bribes in order to propose ridiculously expensive
and wasteful infrastructure projects around town.
Such projects would, of course, need to
be paid for by stealing taxpayer money from other accounts in the city’s
already very tight budget. Perhaps school bus service and school lunches would
be eliminated, forcing our youngsters to walk to school, often in dangerous
neighborhoods. Even those who weren’t victimized by crime would be unable to
concentrate because of the distracting discomfort that an empty stomach and
lack of essential food intake would cause. But then, Councilman Doe apparently
does not care about. . . [Etc.].
“My proposal,”
he told them, “would be paid for by long-term municipal bonds, repaid over
thirty years through a few dollars a year increase in property tax. There would
be no impact on the current city budget.”
The next day,
the Clarion featured this article:
In an interview at the Clarion yesterday, inexperienced
councilman John Doe revealed himself as just another tax-and-spend politician
when he proposed a ruinous debt to pay for his foolish and unnecessary
infrastructure idea by imposing a needless, heavy, thirty-year tax burden on
city taxpayers, their children, and their grand children. When concerned
citizen Ernie Mellick was asked what he thought about the councilman’s ridiculous
proposal, he replied, “I don’t think we want no crooked bribers rising our taxes.
They is just too much [expletive deleted] corruption around here, anyway.”
Ten other citizens were asked, and they
all rejected Doe’s preposterous proposal scornfully. Molly Beartree commented,
“I heard that Doe wants to pay for his plan by stealing food from the mouths of
babes and children. No more school lunch. That means that if Doe gets his way,
kids will starve. Sick children will die. He’s an evil man.”
Another citizen added, “Doe is a murderer.”
Nearby on the first page, was another article.
Over Crazy Doe Proposal
Molly Beartree, a long-time, well
respected resident of Pleasantville, told the Clarion today that she is fed up with the “idiocy,” as she puts it,
of Councilman John Doe’s proposal to slap a ruinous thirty-year tax on
residents to pay for what some have said is a project born of bribery. “I’m
sick and tired of all the underhanded crookedness going on in this town,” she
said. “It’s time we made our voices heard.”
Asked if she planned to get together with
angry friends to protest against the councilman, Mrs. Beartree said that was a
possibility. “We just might do that tonight. We’re meeting in Smith Park at
8:00 pm. We have signs already made.”
That night a
few dozen protesters met at the park where Mrs. Beartree spoke to them. She
informed the crowd about Councilman Doe’s character: “Doe is a slimy,
bribe-taking crook who wants our children to die in the agony of terminal
hunger pains while he lives off the fancy food he can afford because of the
bribes and kickbacks he takes.” She then said, “Are we going to take this? Are
we going to sit by while Doe rapes our city and kills our children?”
The crowd
screamed, “No!”
Mrs. Beartree
then yelled, “Then let’s march to Doe’s house and tell him we aren’t going to
take it anymore!”
The anger of
the crowd increased as the citizens marched toward Councilman Doe’s house and
began to chant, “Doe, Doe, got to go! Doe, Doe, got to go!” When the crowd
arrived at Doe’s house, it wasn’t long before his windows were smashed and his
front yard destroyed. Protesters ran through Mr. Doe’s house, spilling paint on
the floors and walls. Mr. Doe called the police, but by the time they arrived,
his house was in ruins.
The next day,
the Clarion ran the following story.
Hundreds Protest Doe’s Underhanded and
Self-Serving Proposal
Last night hundreds of Pleasantville
citizens exercised their free speech rights and, in a mostly peaceful
demonstration, protested Councilman Doe’s plot to empty the city treasury in
order, as some have speculated, to pay back his cronies for the bribes they
gave him.
There were some reports of damage to
Doe’s front lawn and an unconfirmed claim that a window had been broken,
whether as a stunt by Doe to gain sympathy or by some other means was not
clear.
A fire department spokesman, speaking on
the scene, said that none of his men had broken the window. Similar disclaimers
were offered by the police department, ambulance service, sheriff, and bomb squad.
Mr. Manny Jonson, of Manny’s Towing, said
that neither of the cars he was hauling away was still on fire when he arrived,
and he saw no signs of violent protest.
The Clarion concluded its story by saying that Mr. Doe was unavailable
for comment.
Truth is the foundation of civilization, society, relationship,
prosperity, and progress. Those who lie or distort the truth for their own ends
are worse than selfish. They are destroyers.
Wednesday, January 20, 2021
Your Reputation Has Folowed You
Your
Reputation
Has Followed You
|
F |
armer Hugh was lounging around
the potbelly stove in the general store when one of his workers burst in the
door, more animated than the farmer had ever seen him. “Mr. Hugh,” he said
excitedly, “Mr. Carpenter’s son has just been caught stealing your oranges,
right off the tree in broad daylight.”
“What?”
demanded farmer Hugh, growing quickly angry. “This time he’s going to jail,
since he has a reputation for stealing people’s crops.”
“Speaking of
the devil,” said Mr. Steele, the store proprietor, “here he comes now.”
Everyone looked as the young man entered the store, oblivious to the stares
because he was caught up in a conversation with young Emily Pratt, considered
by many to be the town beauty. After an irresistible glance at the girl, the
men turned their attention to the boy.
“Just look at
that,” said Mr. Hugh’s worker. “He walks just like a thief.”
“He looks like
a thief, too,” added Mr. Hugh.
“And listen to
him,” said Mr. Steele. “He even talks like a thief.”
By now the
young man had stopped talking to Emily and exchanged his look of infatuation
for one of bewilderment, in response to the scowls of the three men. “Is
something wrong?” he asked.
“Wrong? Wrong?”
said Mr. Hugh, sarcastically. “No, nothing’s wrong—that some extended time in
jail won’t make better.” There was a heavy emphasis on the words “extended time
in jail.”
“I don’t
understand,” the young man said.
“Oh, come off
it,” said the worker, almost snarling. “Your reputation has followed you.”
Just then, Mr.
Carpenter, the boy’s father, entered the store. “Come, Henry,” Mr. Carpenter
said, sharply.
“What is it,
Dad?” Henry asked.
“Your brother
Jeremy was just caught stealing oranges from Mr. Hugh here.” Mr. Carpenter
tipped his hat to Mr. Hugh. “I’m so sorry about this. We’ll make it right. Now,
we’ve got to go to the courthouse.”
The three men
looked as if they had been slapped in the face. None spoke until after Mr.
Carpenter and Henry left.
“Actually,”
said Mr. Steele, “he doesn’t really talk like a thief after all.”
“And he doesn’t walk like a thief, either. He
doesn’t have that slinky gait,” added Mr. Hugh’s worker.
“And on second
look, he looks pretty normal, not really like a thief,” admitted Mr. Hugh.
'
Too often, the
path to knowledge is blocked by the prideful assumptions we ourselves place in
front of us.
Thursday, January 14, 2021
A Boring Story
A
Boring Story
|
O |
nce upon a time, a literature
class was studying Shakespeare. “The next play we’ll read,” said the teacher,
“is Hamlet. As with Shakespeare’s other tragedies, we’ll find a mix of serious
drama, comedy, philosophy, psychology, and more.”
“I just love
these plays,” said a student, taking notes on her laptop.
“He really
knows how to explore human nature,” said another student, cleaning his glasses.
“Shakespeare is
boring,” said a red-haired girl.
In a few days,
the class discussed the play. “What stood out to you about the play?” asked the
teacher.
“The gravedigger
scene was hilarious,” said one student.
“I liked the
‘to-be-or-not-to-be’ soliloquy,” said another.
“The play was
boring,” said the red-haired girl.
“Okay, class,”
the teacher continued. “In order to get some deeper insights into the play,
you’re going to give me a five-page paper responding to one of these six
topics. It’s due in two weeks.” The teacher handed out a sheet with the topics
on it.
After looking
over the topics, one student said to those around her, “I like all of these.
How am I going to choose? I wonder if we can write on more than one?”
Another student
raised his hand and asked, “Is it okay if we write more than five pages? It
seems to me that there’s a lot to say on several of these topics.”
“All these
topics are boring,” said the red-haired girl.
“You can’t find
any of them at all of interest?” asked the teacher.
“No. They are
just boring.”
“Then why don’t
you write a five-page essay on ‘What is interesting’?”
“Sounds
boring,” muttered the red-haired girl under her breath.
'
X Those
who are easily bored expect the world to offer constant excitements to them on
a platter.
X Those
who are seldom bored use their curiosity to find their own excitement.
X Those
who are easily bored are not necessarily lazy, proud, and unintelligent, but that
is what others often think.
Questions for Thought and
Discussion
1. Discuss with others what things, subjects.
or entertainments you find interesting and which you find boring. For each one, can you
explain why?
2. If you had to write a five-page essay on “What
is interesting?” what would you say?
3. Over time, have you changed your mind or
your interests so that some things you used to find boring you now find interesting,
and some things you used to find interesting you now find boring? How do you account for the changes?
Picture This
Picture
This
|
I |
n a city far away, both in time
and location, there lived a police captain who used figures of speech to
improve the impact of his statements. One morning when his sergeant arrived,
the captain turned to him and declared, “Sergeant, there’s an infestation of
drug dealing rodents paving the innocent streets of Langomere with a poisonous buffet of criminal agendas.”
“I hear you,
sir,” said Sergeant Smith. “Let’s go down to that neighborhood and arrest those
drug dealers.”
“Yes,” the
Captain said. “It’s about time that the strong arm of the law shined as a
beacon that dances through the beehive of criminal sewers like a wrecking ball
sweeping the floors of a pig sty.”
“But we really
need to find the guys at the top, added Sergeant Smith.”
“Of course,” the
Captain agreed. “We will dismember those running snakes whose octopus arms
stretch over this great city and pollute it with the poisonous tea of broken
dreams. But a hundred sharks rolling through their balance sheets will slap
them in the bank account of egotism as if a helicopter attacking the cesspools
of evil put out those wicked fires all the way down to the bottom of the
ocean.”
“Yes, Captain.”
“Let’s roll.”
'
Questions for Thought and Discussion
Wednesday, January 13, 2021
The Butterfly and the Shotgun
The
Butterfly
And the Shotgun
|
A |
butterfly had just emerged from its chrysalis
and was flexing its wings in the warming sun. “I’m not sure, but I think I can
fly,” the butterfly said, hopefully. But it sat on the branch for some time, continuing
to warm its wings while it remained in some doubt about making an attempt to
fly.
Finally, the creature
summoned enough courage to flap its wings. Surprised by its success, the little
butterfly at first flitted around awkwardly, barely in control of its motions. After
a while, though, it got its bearings and managed to fly happily, if not with complete
assurance, around the meadow.
Just then, a
man with a large, double-barreled shotgun saw the butterfly flitting around not
far away. “Hmmph,” he sneered. “Another uppity caterpillar who thought he could
fly all over the place and not have to crawl anymore.. I’ll show it.” Then he
raised his gun and blasted the butterfly into many unrecognizable pieces.
“That’ll teach
him and his insect pals that it takes a lot more than they’ve got to rule the
sky, especially when Jeb and his trusty pal, the Blaster, are here.”
'
This story reminds us that new thoughts are
often delicate and tentative and should be treated gently in their tentative,
early forms. To react to a new thought with energetic condemnation is to use a
shotgun to kill a butterfly.
Questions for Thought and
Discussion
1. Why is an early, tentative thought compared
to a butterfly just learning to fly?
2. What, do you think makes some people so
eager to “shoot down” the ideas of others?
vvv
Sunday, January 10, 2021
Clarification
Clarification
|
H |
ere’s my lawn mower. See if you
can find the problem.”
“The problem? What makes you think it has
only one problem?”
“It doesn’t
work.”
“That’s a
symptom. That’s not a problem.”
“Okay then, you
mow the lawn with it.”
“Look, I’ll fix
it. It’ll be ready in five days.”
“Five days!”
“Yeah. What’s
the problem?”
“My wife.”
“Has she been
using the mower?”
“No. She’s been
using her mouth.”
“To cut the
grass?”
“Look, can’t
you fix it any faster than five days?”
“I dunno. Now
that I look at it, I think it’ll take at least a week.”
“I’ll be back
in five days. It had better be ready or my wife will kill me.”
“Hey, if it’s
that bad, why don’t you get a new one?”
“Do you have
any idea how much a divorce costs these days?”
“Naw, all I
carry is Toro. Here’s a sexy red baby for only one twenty nine and change. You
can’t beat that.”
“Yeah, they
tell you you’re getting a good deal when you buy it, and it hums and purrs quietly
and does the work diligently and satisfactorily at first.”
“That’s right.
So you are interested in a new one?”
“But after too
short a time, the purring turns into clanking and growling and barking. And it’s
all you can do to keep it going straight.”
“So. . . .”
“And as they
get older, it seems that as the performance diminishes, the maintenance goes
up.”
“Shall I wrap
up the Toro, then?”
“I guess not. Just
fix this one. No use spending extra money on a new one that will just break
down like all the others.”
“Okay, sir.”
“Besides, I’ve
kind of grown fond of old Gertrude. Been with me these eighteen years.”
“Right. I’ll
fix the problem with the build-up and maybe add some paint and body work, and
she’ll look like new.”
“That would be
great. And say, could you put back some of that lively zip—if you know what I mean—that
she had when I first brought her home?”
“Well, buddy, I’m
sorry. I just fix lawnmowers. I don’t work miracles.”
'
X Too many talkers don’t know what they are
talking about because they are not paying attention to the conversation they
are in.
Questions for Thought and
Discussion
1. How does this story use humor to give an
example of the problem created when two people do not seem to be discussing the
same subject?
2. Define the idea of “talking past each
other.”
3. How does the use of pronouns with unclear
referents contribute to the success of the story?
vvv
Friday, January 08, 2021
Perspective
Perspective
|
M |
el and Jim were driving down the
road to town when they reached a turn that headed them into the low afternoon
sun.
“This is
terrible,” exclaimed Mel. “The sun is right in my eyes.”
“Mine, too,”
said Jim, “but it’s not so bad.”
“What do you
mean?” demanded Mel. “I can barely see. And the light hurts my eyes.”
“Yes, but that
means you have eyes. Eyes that can see. Aren’t you happy that you aren’t
blind?”
“Well, I guess
so. But why does this road have to go right in the direction of the sun?”
“Because it’s
going to town and we are fortunate enough to have a reliable vehicle, time,
money, and purpose for going along this road into town. We have homes to leave
and to return to.”
“But the sun—“
“Brings us a
new day each day and a new night each night, in a country where we are free to
drive around without having to show our travel papers every five miles, or be
questioned about our business.”
'
X
Whenever you experience a loss, have an accident or injury, or just grow irritated
over heavy traffic, think of how many blessings you have that render your discomfort
comparatively meaningless.
X Light—such
as light from the sun—provides a metaphor for revealing truth. The truth is
there, but our prejudices suppress it. We put the light under a basket because
we are afraid of what we might see if we hold it up high.
To light a
candle is the supreme act of courage.
vvv
Questions for Thought and
Discussion
1. Think of the
way many people lived even just a hundred years ago and how many appliances, tools,
and other luxuries they lacked. Do you
think we complain more or less than they did about how “difficult” life is?
Vocabulary
Thursday, January 07, 2021
Evidence
Evidence
|
Y |
es, Sir, we have a very nice,
quiet cottage for you and your wife,” said
the landlord to the young couple.
“Oh, we’re not
married,” replied the man. “This is just my girlfriend.”
“Oh, just a
couple of new romantics, eh?”
“Actually, not.
We’ve been together for six years.”
“Six years? Why
in the world haven’t you gotten married?” The landlord was taken aback.
“What for?”
asked the young man. “A marriage certificate
is only a piece of paper. It’s meaningless.”
“I see. Well,
here’s your room key.”
“Thanks. And
here are the keys for the valet parking.”
“Well, thanks
for the car.” The landlord began to strut toward the couple’s car and toss the
keys as if he thought he owned it.
“What are you
talking about? I gave you the keys so you can park it for me. Hey, where are
you going?”
“It’s my car.
You just gave it to me.”
“No, I didn’t.
And if you don’t get out of my car, I’ll call the police.”
“So? I’ll tell
them you gave it to me and they’ll take my word against yours. I’ve known many
of the officers on the force for years.”
“But I have the
pink slip,” objected the young man, clearly growing upset.
“The pink slip?
That’s only a piece of paper—which is, as you say, meaningless. And don’t tell
me you have the registration, too. That’s just more meaningless paper. See you.”
“Where are you
going?”
“To my new home
at 214 Willow Street.”
“No, you’re
not. That’s my house.”
“Says you. But
they say possession is nine tenths of the law. And I will soon be in
possession.”
“But I have—.”
“And you might
guess that I don’t care if you have a grant deed. That’s only piece of paper,
too.”
“If you try to
take my car and my house, I’ll sue—.”
“That would be
great. Then you can testify as a witness for my side, affirming your recently
spoken belief that the documents you are now referring to are only meaningless pieces
of paper.”
'
X The value of many things
lies in the meaning we have ascribed to them, not in their physical existence.
X Someone who pays $57
million for a three hundred-year-old painting is not buying merely a few ounces of oil
paint on a canvas.
vvv
Questions
for Thought and Discussion
1. This story is obviously a fairy tale that
would never happen. So what is its purpose?
2. Why do each of the pieces of paper exist?
Are they necessary?
3. Can you think of other “meaningless”
pieces of paper in common use today? What purpose do they serve?
Unsettled Science
Unsettled
Science
|
Y |
ou have quite a book collection,”
said a man to his friend, as they examined the friend’s book shelves. “I didn’t
know you were such a librarian.”
“Thank you,” said the friend. “I love ideas.”
“But why,” demanded
the man, as he spied a particular book, “do you keep this anti-science junk by Arronius
in your library? His conclusions have been completely refuted by everyone worth
noticing, you know.”
“I am aware of
that,” said the librarian. “But it seems to me that he speaks truth in sixteen
places, making the volume worth preserving.”
“But selling
lies by including a little truth is surely the most common way of deceiving
people.”
“That is also
true. But that is why we learn critical thinking. To separate the true from the
false, to ferret out deception, distortion, and deviousness. In fact,” the librarian
added, as an afterthought, “you might even call Arronius an educator.”
“No, I
wouldn’t,” said the man. “I’d call him a prevaricator. Perhaps a duper,
certainly a fraud.”
“In general,”
replied the defender of Arronius, you are right, as I have said. But as I have
also just said, for the sake of the small truth, however crammed away or
disguised, I have kept the book. In my view, any book with even a few kernels
of truth is worth keeping in order to have access to that truth.”
“Well then, why
don’t you just cut out the few pages with the truth in them and toss away the
rest?”
“If we were to
follow that advice for all of our books,” mused the librarian, “our libraries
would consist of little other than a handful of pamphlets listing obvious
facts. ”
“That is the
most cynical, sweeping condemnation of the scientific enterprise I have ever
heard,” said the scientist, his anger obviously rising.
“Then, too,”
continued the book lover, “isn’t it possible that something we now consider
error may by further learning or a more careful analysis come to be understood
as truth? Or that some idea that today causes us to ridicule Arronius might
someday prove to be a reason to praise him for pointing the way to the truth, for
discovering the right pathway, even though he was wrong on his own journey down
that path?”
“So you’re
admitting that the lies in those books might eventually seduce you into error.”
“Not at all.
I’m saying that one century’s truth often becomes another century’s error—even
in science—and that sometimes what was scoffed at in one era is exalted in
another.”
“What are you,”
scowled the scientist, “some kind of twisted relativist?”
“No,” said the librarian,
“I believe in absolute truth but I’m not so sure that what our society or culture
identifies as truth is the absolute truth. Remember John Donne’s comment: ‘On a
huge hill, cragged and steep, Truth stands, and he that will reach her, about
must and about must go.’ We praise ourselves too hastily, I think, when we celebrate
a new discovery of ‘truth’ which later turns out to be false.”
By now, the scientist
was red with anger. “So you would throw ‘settled science’ into the trash can
and go on drinking dirty water contaminated with cholera and bleeding people to
make them well. Fortunately for sane and reasonable people, we have moved
beyond that and into a healthier era.”
“And I’m glad
to live in a modern, healthier era—.”
“—made so by
science,” the scientist interrupted. “Give me one solid book of scientific truth
and you can have a thousand of those other books filled with falsehoods and
errors.”
“Yes, no doubt,”
the librarian continued, “but as for truths in general, I see in my own
imperfections the possible imperfections of others. Too often, upon closer
examination, ‘facts’ turn out to be not observable or provable phenomena, but networks
of arguments whose conclusions have been settled by political agreement and
compromise more than by empirical evidence.”
“I’m going to
report you.”
“Whatever for?”
“For denying
the scientific method.”
“What is the
scientific method, anyway?”
“You don’t
know? Your employment in the academy is in jeopardy.”
'
X The
practice of science often results not in the discovery of a new truth, but the discrediting
of an old truth.
vvv
Questions for Thought and Discussion
1. What seems to be the scientist’s
attitude toward science? Toward truth?
2. What is the librarian’s philosophy
about truth?
3. What arguments does the scientist
use to support his point about science?
4. What examples does the
librarian use that he says make him cautious about statements of truth?
5. The two men discussing truth have
different personalities and attitudes. What can you point to in the story that
reveals each man’s personality?
6. At the beginning of the story,
the author describes the two men in one way, but as the story progresses, their
description changes. Comment on what the changes are and what effect this has.
Vocabulary
Locate in the
story where each of the following words occurs. Then look up a definition of
each word. Finally, write a sentence or two explaining the effectiveness of the
word.
Refuted
Deceiving
Critical thinking
Deviousness
Prevaricator
Duper
Mused
Seduce
Scoffed
Scowled
Relativist
Cholera
Imperfections
Phenomena
Networks
Empirical
Jeopardy
Monday, January 04, 2021
Free Speech
Free
Speech
|
J |
ust as it often happens, one
bright, sunny day two professors met halfway across the green at a prestigious,
great American university.
“Hi, Frank.”
“Hi, John.”
“Um,
assumptions 1 through 47, 56, 92, and 190 through 197, with the usual
exceptions for 13b and 17g, with our regular qualifications on 194.”
“So stipulated,
with the addition of 73c and 73d, and with liberty to interpret generalizations
according to the Interuniversity Treaty of Discourse, Section 24, as amended.”
“Agreed. So,
how’s it going?”
“Fine, fine (in
accordance with Characterization Rule 6 of the Informal Interaction Protocol,
Chapter 19, Section 102.43f, paragraph 37). How about you?”
“Great (as
understood as a hyperbolic colloquialism per the Findings of the Ad Hoc
Committee on Exaggeratory Declamation). Um, nice weather we’re having, huh? (as
understood by Ruling 384c, Paragraph 5, of the Committee to Investigate
Hegemonic Small Talk.)”
“I concur (as
an interpersonal exchange agreeability response as defined by the Conversational
Harmony Ruling of the Committee to Investigate Hurtful Speech, and without
warranty or claim of correspondence to the actual atmospheric conditions,
together with the right of no-fault recantation at any point, under either necessity
or arbitrary decision, without a reason requirement).”
Now, it so
happened that an ignorant freshman had been sitting on one of those
uncomfortable concrete benches easily within hearing range of this interaction,
and at this point in the discussion, curiosity got the better of his reserve,
and he interrupted them.
“Excuse me,
sirs, but what are you talking about?”
Both professors
gave a start and looked at the young student with surprise and not a little
fear and hostility.
“Well, well, apparent
person,” said the professor named Frank, gruffly, “you can’t just break into a
conversation like that.”
“Oh, I understand,”
said the youth. “Hello. My name is Paul.”
“Knowing your
name is not the issue,” said Professor Frank. We cannot talk to you because you
haven’t been stipulated.”
“Oh, I’m officially
registered for classes,” offered the young man, gamely.
“No, no, no,”
said Professor Frank. Unless you agree in advance to the rules of discourse, we
could get in trouble.”
“How?”
“Well, you
might misinterpret what we say and get us hauled before the Committee. We could
lose our jobs!” Professor Frank had begun to perspire nervously.
“The
Committee?”
“Yes, yes. You
know. The Committee to Investigate Politically Incorrect, Harassing, Hateful,
Harmful, Hurtful, Horrible, Offensive, Microaggressive, Hegemonic, Non-Consensual,
Non-Liberating, Renegade, Extremist, Heteronormative, Sexist, Unfair,
Uncompassionate, Objectionable Speech, Writing, Gestures, and Other
Communication.”
“You realize,
Frank,” said the professor named John, in a sardonic tone, “that you are even
now committing unstipulated discourse with an undergraduate. I should report
you, in compliance with Directive 67.”
“No! Please!” cried
Professor Frank, with choking emotion in his voice and a look of terror burned
into his very red face. “I have not said anything actionable.”
“But maybe you
were thinking it,” said Professor John. “And besides, you gave no trigger
warnings before you used the words rules,
trouble, misinterpret, and lose our
jobs. You’ll recall that Professor Jenks was fired just last fall for
failing to use a trigger warning before telling a student he had
‘misinterpreted the poem.’”
“Don’t compare
me to him,” pleaded Professor Frank. “He deserved to be fired for trying to
impose his reactionary, monoexegetic ideology on students—as if there is such a
thing as a ‘misinterpretation.’ Such a vicious totalizing narrative has no
place at the university.”
“I’m afraid I
must report you,” said Professor John, glumly. “After all, you did say, ‘No,
no, no,’ which is specifically declared abusive hate speech under the Criticism
Elimination Directive Specifying Kind and Tolerant Speech, as Amended.”
Just as Professor
Frank was at the point of getting on his knees to beg, the young man said,
“This is nuts. I’m out of here.” But as he turned to leave, Professor John grabbed
him by the arm.
“What did you
say?” he demanded angrily.
“I said this
whole thing is crazy, so I’m leaving.”
“No, you’re
not,” said Professor John, hotly. “You’ve just committed a second degree
communication felony. In fact, two of them.”
“Huh? What are
you talking about?”
Instead of
answering the young man, Professor John turned to Professor Frank and said,
“Call a Communications Counselor.” But Frank was already talking to the
Department of Communications Interaction Enforcement Speech Services (SS for
short), and it wasn’t more than thirty seconds before two university cars arrived
at high speed, bearing prominent signs with SS on them. As the cars braked hard
to a stop, two uniformed men jumped out of each car. All four were pointing
video cameras.
“Preemptive
Protocol 1A,” said one of the officers, “and privileged rules under the
Communications Interaction Enforcement Regulations. I’m Officer Jones, Speech
Services. What is your narrative?” Two officers pointed their video cameras at
the two professors and two at the student.
“This person
here,” said Professor John, motioning toward the student, “used hate speech
against us and accused us of being intellectually alternatively labeled.
Twice.”
“Spell the words
used,” said Officer Jones.
Professor John
complied, and then added, “And we aren’t within 1000 feet of the Free Speech
With Exceptions Bench in the Quad.”
“This kind of intolerant
and judgmental language is not protected by the Free Speech concessions,” said
Officer Jones. “Those are both Category A words. The first is Prohibited Word number
1867 and the second is Prohibited Word number 4147. This abusive and smutty
language is not protected anywhere on campus.”
It wasn’t long
before the student was taken away in handcuffs and shackles to the Department
of Communications Interaction Enforcement building, where he was placed in a
holding cell on the eighth floor until his hearing.
At the trial
before the Committee, the student’s appointed defense representative said, “If
it please the court. While there is certainly no excuse at all for this person’s
use of scurrilous, hateful, demeaning, unfair speech, it is incumbent on me to
note, with emphasis, that said offender did say, ‘This is crazy,’ rather than ‘You
are crazy.’ Had such a case obtained, I would never have agreed to defend him.”
The six members
of the prosecution team all nodded their heads in agreement. The judge said,
“Of course, in that case, he would have been immediately expelled from the university.”
The judge also noted that the typical penalty included being prohibited for
life from attending any other campus of the state’s universities, or any of the
universities in the country that were members of the Consortium for Fair and Open
Communications.
However, since
this was his first offense, and since the student was a freshman in his first
week on campus, and had not yet taken Multicultural Community 101, Sociology
1A: Maintaining a Safe Environment, or the three-day language sensitivity
orientation training, and since the judge on his case was known for softness
and leniency, the student’s only penalty was to write a 10,000-word apology to
each of the two professors, a 25,000-word essay on the evils of hate speech, 80
hours of communications sensitivity training, 240 hours of community service
(helping the librarians mark out offensive words from books, journals, and
magazines), and a permanent notice on his transcript that he had been convicted
of four counts (two words spoken to two people) of hateful, bigoted, hurtful,
offensive scurrility.
“We want the
university to be a free and open place where students—and faculty—can feel safe
to learn and communicate without fear of insult or offense,” concluded the
judge at the end of a lengthy, pointed, biting condemnation of the student’s
behavior.
“I don’t
understand this at all,” said one faculty member in the audience. “Why does
this judge always let them off so easy?”
'
™ Laws can be good or bad, and judgments just
or unjust. Strive for a good and just society.
Questions
About the Story
1. When you read this story, what makes you
think that the story is not to be taken as a literal account of what actually
goes on at many universities?
2. What about the story suggests that it is
warning of a dystopian future?
Literary Enhancement
Satire is a writing mode that criticizes
a target by adopting a pose or attitude that pretends to be neutral or even supportive
of the target, but by using exaggeration, irony, understatement, and other techniques,
causes the target to appear ridiculous and laughable.
In the story, after reading the
sentence imposed on the student, the last paragraph is clearly ironic.
Describe other satiric elements or
examples in the story.
Vocabulary
Locate in the
story where each of the following words occurs. Then look up a definition of
each word. Finally, write a sentence or two explaining the effectiveness of the
word.
Stipulated
Hyperbolic
Discourse
Declamation
Prestigious
Sardonic
Gamely
Harassing
Perspiring
Ideology
Glumly
Leniency
Smutty
Dystopian